Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that the species arose from earlier species. Slight changes accumulating over long time periods resulted in one species giving rise to a new species, over and over.

Prediction

In this evolutionary process new species sometimes branch off from older ones and the history of life forms a tree-like pattern—an evolutionary tree. Indeed, the one figure in Darwin’s book, shown below, was that of such a pattern.

As evolutionists further elaborated on Darwin’s idea in the twentieth century the concept of an evolutionary tree became increasingly foundational to the theory. This figure below from a leading textbook [George Johnson, Jonathan Losos, The Living World, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008.] is typical.

As the textbook explains:

Today scientists can decipher each of all the thousands of genes (the genome) of an organism. By comparing genomes of different organisms, researchers can literally reconstruct the tree of life. The organisms at the base of the tree are more ancient life-forms, having evolved earlier in the history of life on earth. The higher branches indicate other organisms that evolved later.

Evolutionists have even developed a Tree of Life Web Project, shown below, that provides information for each species and how the different species are related in the evolutionary tree:

And as more genome data have become increasingly available evolutionists naturally assumed it would be feasible to derive a comprehensive evolutionary tree:

Once universal characters were available for all organisms, the Darwinian vision of a universal representation of all life and its evolutionary history suddenly became a realistic possibility. Increasing reference was made to this universal, molecule-based phylogeny as the “comprehensive” tree of the “entire spectrum of life” [13, 14, 15, 16, 17].

A key corollary of this evolutionary tree concept is that the different traits of the species agree and point to the same tree. Various evolutionary effects may cause occasional differences between the trees, but roughly speaking, if different traits are used to reconstruct the evolutionary tree, they should produce similar trees. There may be some evolutionary “noise,” but different traits should mostly agree.

In the early twentieth century blood immunity studies provided just such confirmation. The results provided a new trait that could be used to judge the similarity and difference between different species. When the results were found to agree with the previously established evolutionary tree based on visible traits, evolutionists hailed the findings as new proofs of evolution.

Similarly, evolutionists hailed similar confirmations in the molecular sequence data that were discovered later in the century. Here is evolutionist Jerry Coyne’s summary from his recent book Why Evolution Is True:

Creatures with recent common ancestors share many traits, while those whose common ancestors lay in the distant past are more dissimilar. The “natural” classification is itself strong evidence for evolution. [p. 9]

Strong evidence indeed. Evolutionist David Penny made the point that this evidence provides a means to falsify evolution. The philosopher Karl Popper had argued evolution is not falsifiable, but for Penny this evidence proved Popper wrong. Penny showed how different proteins, compared across different species, lead to similar evolutionary trees. If they hadn’t, Penny argued, evolution would be false.

Falsification

Now, thirty years after Penny cited the congruence of different evolutionary trees as a prediction that could falsify evolution, it is not controversial even amongst evolutionists that the prediction is false. The plethora of new DNA and protein sequence data have provided a steady stream of incongruent evolutionary trees. These trees strongly conflict with the trees based on other sequence data, or with the consensus evolutionary tree. And the disagreement is far beyond evolutionary “noise.” As one evolution wrote:

Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.

Another paper admits that “the more molecular data is analysed, the more difficult it is to interpret straightforwardly the evolutionary histories of those molecules.”

Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.

Evolutionists are not sure just what the data mean, but even they agree that different traits, across different species, often do not produce congruent evolutionary trees. And the difference is not mere “noise.”

Reaction

How do evolutionists deal with this falsification? David Penny, the evolutionist who cited the congruence of different evolutionary trees as a prediction that could falsify evolution now has a different story. Penny now reveals that congruent trees never really were a prediction of evolution. After all, Darwin was not nearly so keen on promoting the evolutionary tree concept as he was descent with modification. In fact, according to Penny, the new evidence “enriches our understanding of evolution.”

Likewise, another paper argues that perhaps the evolutionary tree was more of a heuristic than a prediction.

And as usual evolutionists appeal to a spectrum of explanatory devices to correct the narrative. The most prevalent of these epicycles is the horizontal gene transfer (HGT), a term that encompasses several known mechanisms by which genes can transfer between organisms such as bacteria.

In fact, if evolution is true then HGT must have been one of its key players. As one paper explained, HGT “has emerged as a central force in the evolution of many different prokaryotes.”

and now cases of HGT in eukaryotes are emerging at an increasing rate and account for many adaptively important traits

So HGT is now a key mechanism of the evolutionary process. It can do what the old mechanisms could not. In fact, one must wonder how this powerful mechanism knows when to send which genes where. For the various versions of HGT are incredibly intelligent.

For instance, consider the HGT process of transformation in which DNA from the extracellular environment is imported into the cell via what one paper describes as “a complex process” involving a small army of protein machines.

Then there is the HGT process of conjugation in which the DNA is transferred via cell-to-cell contact. A bridge-like connection is constructed between the two cells through which helpful DNA is transferred. And the donor cell has the molecular machinery to verify that the receiving cell does not already possess the donated DNA. And the DNA includes genes critical in the conjugation process. The DNA to be sent over is nicked and unwound so a single strand can be threaded through the bridge connection.

Serendipity squared

Gone are the days of simple mutations creating so much of the biological world. They were reminiscent of those swerving atoms of the Epicureans. And like those swerving atoms, they are prima facie incapable of creating biology’s wonders.

Beyond this obvious failure, much more than mutations are required to explain biology’s patterns. The evolutionary tree is out and networks, or webs, or some such, are in. And a new set of mechanisms, such as HGTs, are the brains behind the creation.

But epicycles are not free. In this case, the marshalling of HGTs as the explanation for biology’s patterns and success raises the question of where these complex mechanisms came from in the first place. According to evolutionary theory, evolution created the incredibly complex HGTs which then facilitated, yes, evolution.

Do they seriously expect us to believe this? Religion drives science, and it matters.

Clearly new terminologies are invented every day to prop up this FAITH. Seems that the further deeper research into the complexity of DNA has not actually been a good thing for them, hence the need to evolve the theory once more. The latest catch phraze above apparently might read something like this in the future: "Dice & HGT did it".---

Cornelius Hunter:

"Do they seriously expect us to believe this?"===

Most Eccliastical Hierarchies do work that way by demanding strict obedience from the parishioners. It's heretical to remain in the past and not evolve forward with the theory when their Prophets suddenly declare they've received flashes of new light revelations. Though I highly doubt that their much beloved "Evolutionary Tree" will die a quick death as their #1 major religious Icon.

And ultimately it should be noted that all new prophetic revelations produced by their Shamman must not contradict their number article of faith, "NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED". (This inspite of the fact that they continually hijack ID mechanisms and lable it evolutionary) Although the possibility door should be left open to other countless kookisms like parallel universes, Aliens from other worlds/other gods, etc, etc, etc. Just as long as it's anything other than biblical, it will be considered acceptable.

Thanks for the reference to the Biology Direct paper by O'Malley & Koonin entitled How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin?. It's a clearly-written review, with attention to the fascinating history of the Tree concept and the application of the concept to future research and understanding. Here is a pivotal paragraph (p.13):

"Doubts about the extent to which the TOL can be known are conjoined with questions about how the TOL actually functions in evolutionary biology. There are several candidates for the epistemological role the TOL plays in evolutionary biology, and these include the functions of an axiom, a hypothesis or theory, a model, or a heuristic. We will examine two of these possibilities with the particular aim of understanding why the TOL endures despite the evidence against it, and whether one of these epistemological accounts of the TOL enables us to understand better the conceptual transitions and debates that have transformed it over the last 150 years."

The topic of your post once again illustrates a fundamental difference between religion and science. Religions adhere dogmatically to doctrine without allowing amendment in light of experience. Scientific "dogmas," in contrast, are always subject to revision in light of new data.

"The topic of your post once again illustrates a fundamental difference between religion and science."===

Not so fast. Both sides make faith-based statements and dogmatically defend them. Hence there is no difference between science[especially evolutionary biology] and religion have the same identical and historical shackles when it comes to this trait. ---

Pedant:

Religions adhere dogmatically to doctrine without allowing amendment in light of experience."===

Wow, if this isn't more "Pot calling Kettle Schwarz". While it's true religious people can dogmatically defend a dogma/doctrine in the light of all the evidence[and I've personally experienced this], in particular Evolutionists are identical in their dogmatic defenses of such kook ideas which clearly equal many things creationist. Clearly your FAITH remains intact.

---

Pedant:

"Scientific "dogmas," in contrast, are always subject to revision in light of new data."===

Ah yes, "SCIENCE", that ever self-correcting automated machine. WRONG, science is only as honest and good as the imperfect people who control it who've got all the same flaws of prejudice, greed, selfishness and bias will let it and the same goes for religion.

Science for the most part is a power and wealth driven animal run by people motivated by selfishness and greed and they have no problem burrying the facts where necessary to obtain those goals. Here's an example. GMOs are probably one of the most irresponsible endeavors Scientists have ever taken up. Lying is part of their program. Generally lawsuits have to be brought in order for the truth to come out.

"Considering that a recent report showed AgResearch scientists intentionally corrupting monitoring research of risky microbial horizontal gene transfer (HGT), these unnatural reproductive outcomes and continued animal welfare issues, should spell the end of the Ruakura GE experiments," said Mr Browning.(3)

The conscience hardening effects of a materialist evolutionary worldview have also brought us here.

This is the kind of crap science we get when imperfect selfish greedy humans are running the science programs and playing Dr Josef Mengele in the process. Your "Self-Correctionism Science" is a Utopian dream brought about and influenced by an amoral materialist worldview given to us by evolutionary philosophy.

It represents the work of many life times of those evolutionists who thought classifying and developing trees based on morphology was king. Unfortunately genetics research came along and laid the axe to their tree. Cherished idols die hard.

I hope that evolutionists will leave the "tree of life" at all of Darwins memorial displays. If I ever take may family to see one, I can easily point to this cherished visible object of veneration among the faithful Darwinists and start a great conversation on how this accepted fact was shown to be wrong.

It was the supposed tree that Darwinists poked into the faces of creationists and said God wouldn't have designed life like this. There would be mixing of traits from unrelated groups if God had created life, so they said. Now that Darwinists have spent decades carefully developing the tree and using it as a weapon against creationists, along comes genetics that shows there is indeed mixing of genes from unrelated groups all the way up the supposed tree.

Ironically, the Darwinists metaphysical argument about how God wouldn't have created, was how things actually turned out. One could say they hung themselves from their own tree.

But in fact, it illustrates that evolution is protected from falsification. It accommodates whatever is believed at the moment. If that should change, then so does the accommodation. It can always find new "evidence" if the old "evidence" is falsified. It's a house of magic cards, smoke and mirrors.

Ultimately it is a philosophy of interpreting the data, not science. They can't even get a consistent metaphysical argument to stand up.

Funny. Anyone who is curious enough to read the papers quoted by Hunter will be surprised. For example, the paper by Ford Doolittle and Eric Bapteste [1] has this interesting tidbit:

To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation (80) and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them (81, 82), it would be perverse to claim that Darwin's TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants.

So, has the tree of life, as proposed by Darwin, been falsified? The authors don't seem to think so and in fact say explicitly that it hasn't. Hunter is guilty of quote mining. Surprise!

On a larger scale, the tree hypothesis probably doesn't work. But is that a consolation to creationists? I don't think so. Even detractors of the tree of life say that all animals share a common ancestor. You are still related to the chimpanzees, guys. And to mice. And even insects. My sincere condolences.

oleg, said "or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants"

--

Is this your story and your going to stick to it?Of course detractors say evolution is still true... the CH's point!

"Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants"

...Therefore, portions of the tree of life a still valid? Seriously? That's pretty shallow reasoning even for an evolutionist.

Your out of luck with the chimp comparison too...

Orangutans and humans are supposedly more distantly related, however, some regions (20 million base pairs) of our genomes are more alike with organgutans than those of the chimps. One portion of the genome gives you one version of the supposed tree, but another portion of the genome gives you a different version of the tree. So the DNA data doesn't give a consistent view of common ancestry.

So the remaining branches of the tree that evolutionists still think have some viability are simply sustained by ungrounded assumptions.

What is the best explanation for the mixing of traits? "God would have done it that way" if you reverse the old evolutionists metaphysical argument. LOL!

Your argument is self-defeating. You are accusing Ford Doolittle of shallow reasoning. The same Doolittle whom Hunter cites in support of his claim that the prediction of common descent has been falsified.

I can see how an argument "evolutionists are just stupid" can be attractive. But if you seriously hope that it works, you are deluded. Scientists aren't idiots. They can make erroneous predictions but they have enough flexibility to change their theories when experimental evidence calls for it. That makes science a versatile tool for acquiring knowledge.

In contrast, you are boxed in to believe that God specially created humans and any idea that humans share ancestry with apes, monkeys, cats, dogs, and other animals, is simply unacceptable. You and your fellow fundamentalists will resist the idea as long as you can in the face of evidence. Cornelius can give you false hope that the science is wrong, but he is only prolonging your pain. Special creation will have to go just like geocentrism did. The Roman Catholic Church has already learned to live with common ancestry. When will you, guys, follow? It isn't a question of if, only a question of when.

Evolutionist David Penny made the point that this evidence provides a means to falsify evolution. The philosopher Karl Popper had argued evolution is not falsifiable, but for Penny this evidence proved Popper wrong. Penny showed how different proteins, compared across different species, lead to similar evolutionary trees. If they hadn’t, Penny argued, evolution would be false.

And this provides a good example for why falsification isn't very good for demarcating science from non-science. There is always the possibility that at least one of the assumptions one uses when testing ones hypotheses is wrong. The addition of HGT as a mechanism can, indeed, put a spanner in the works when trying to form perfect organismal hierachies. Cornelius wants us to belive that this somehow makes evolution false, but that is nothing short of stupid. HGT happens and it does alter the genomes of organisms - and it does it fast. Methinks that Cornelius doesn't like this, so he writes:

But epicycles are not free. In this case, the marshalling of HGTs as the explanation for biology’s patterns and success raises the question of where these complex mechanisms came from in the first place.

Ah, yes. There is always intelligence involved somewhere in the process, isn't there...

And this provides a good example for why falsification isn't very good for demarcating science from non-science.

Funny how evolutionists use falsifiability as a weapon against opposing ideas, but argue it is a hollow critique of evolution.

The addition of HGT as a mechanism can, indeed, put a spanner in the works when trying to form perfect organismal hierarchies. Cornelius wants us to believe that this somehow makes evolution false, but that is nothing short of stupid.

Correction, it would be stupid if I had written that. But since I don’t want you to believe that, and said no such thing, the criticism is a strawman.

HGT happens and it does alter the genomes of organisms - and it does it fast. Methinks that Cornelius doesn't like this

Why would you think that?

Cornelius wrote: But epicycles are not free. In this case, the marshalling of HGTs as the explanation for biology’s patterns and success raises the question of where these complex mechanisms came from in the first place.

Funny how evolutionists use falsifiability as a weapon against opposing ideas, but argue it is a hollow critique of evolution.

Funny how I never use falsifiability as a weapon against opposing ideas. It's almost like you're trying to make me look like a hypocrite. You fail miserably, however.

Correction, it would be stupid if I had written that. But since I don’t want you to believe that, and said no such thing, the criticism is a strawman.

That's the way I read what you wrote.

Why would you think that?

Most likely because you are always trying to show evolution wrong by only considering point mutations. (so that there wouldn't be enough time for evolution to do it's thing)

Is that it? No intelligence allowed?

I'm pretty sure we've been over this a million times already. When you introduce some positive evidence for intelligent design, we'd all be happy to look at it. All you do is keep on harping on about how unlikely something is to have evolved. Well, Cornelius, it's even less likely to have been designed.

When you introduce some positive evidence for intelligent design, we'd all be happy to look at it. All you do is keep on harping on about how unlikely something is to have evolved. Well, Cornelius, it's even less likely to have been designed.

You must realize that when you make such a statement, even though the context is evolution, you bite off OOL too.

What positive evidence is there for molecules spontaneously assembling into life forms, and, without reason, determining that there should be more of themselves and determining away to blueprint and replicate themselves?

I forgot that only you are allowed to assert your vague story of events (I don't know what happened, but somehow I know it wasn't intelligent) and call it science. You don't need evidence to support it, only to overturn it. That's convenient.

We have no observation of intelligent agents designing life, but we do have evidence of intelligent agents designing. Compare that to our observations of anything randomly organizing to create function. That would be none, ever.

So by what means did you determine that design was less likely, since we can rule out any type of science? You're merely professing your own religion.

Funny how I never use falsifiability as a weapon against opposing ideas. It's almost like you're trying to make me look like a hypocrite. You fail miserably, however.

No, that was not my intention.

I'm pretty sure we've been over this a million times already. When you introduce some positive evidence for intelligent design, we'd all be happy to look at it. All you do is keep on harping on about how unlikely something is to have evolved. Well, Cornelius, it's even less likely to have been designed.

Right, which is why evolution is not a scientific theory. It can sustain all manner of empirical problems because we know it must be true regardless.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]

As such, it was't empirical evidence that proved Popper wrong for Penny. Popper (at the time) had a different idea of what natural selection meant.

The reason why popper thought evolution wasn't falsifiable was because he mistook the concept of natural selection for "survival of the fittest."I did some digging on natural selection. The folks at PBS, call it The process by which individuals’ inherited needs and abilities are more or less closely matched to resources available in their environment, giving those with greater "fitness" a better chance of survival and reproduction.There's no untangling that into something meaningful, so I tried again.

Berkeley goes for the four year old reader and offers the most simplistic illustration without including a definition. Were there no actual examples so that they had to make one up with green and blue beetles?

Wikipedia states: Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.The genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others. Factors which affect reproductive success are also important, an issue which Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection.

This one is quite tautological. If something is more common, it was naturally selected. What was naturally selected? Whatever is more common. Yes, there's mention of mechanisms, but the process is always defined in terms of its outcome.

Let me try one more. Honestly, I'm not picking and choosing.

Nature.com:The differential survival and/or reproduction of classes of entities that differ in one or more characteristics. To constitute natural selection, the difference in survival and/or reproduction cannot be due to chance, and it must have the potential consequence of altering the proportions of the different entities. Thus, natural selection is also definable as a deterministic difference in the contribution of different classes of entities to subsequent generations. Usually, the differences are inherited. The entities may be alleles, genotypes or subsets of genotypes, populations, or, in the broadest sense, species.

Again, lip service to characteristics, but natural selection is defined by differential reproduction and survival. They're always careful to point out that it's not random.

So we're left with two options. A species exists because (a) it wasn't wiped out by a random act, or (b), it was naturally selected, i.e. it exists.

The terrific thing about natural selection is that you can identify it without any research of any kind. Point at any living thing, and presto! It was naturally selected. How can you tell? Because it's alive. Look at any feature or trait of any living thing, and how did it get there? It was naturally selected. There's no need to test, because, you see, everything came about that way. How wonderfully convenient.

"Compare that to our observations of anything randomly organizing to create function. That would be none, ever."

So, if a tree falls across a river or a canyon, and it enables you and other creatures to cross the stream or canyon, does the fallen tree provide a function, was the tree designed to be a bridge, and was its falling in that position/location designed?

Actually, let's talk about your question:If a find a fallen tree, do you think it was placed there by design?If you find a fallen tree across a river, do you think it was placed there by design?If you find a fallen tree across a river in a spot where there used to be a bridge that got washed away, do you think it was placed there by design?If you find the pieces of a tree cut up and nailed together and placed across a river in form well suited for walking across, perhaps with handrails, do you think it was placed there by design?

I know what comes next, just not who it's coming from. Waiting for it...

"Funny how I never use falsifiability as a weapon against opposing ideas. It's almost like you're trying to make me look like a hypocrite. You fail miserably, however."

Cornelius:

"No, that was not my intention."===

The truly funny thing is that they make themselves come off as hypocrite which never required your help in the least. They do it to themselves and blame you for making them look like fools. As you've stated before, "You just can't make this stuff up."---

Natchuster:

"What I don't understand is why people say that Id is not falsifiable, they say that it has been falsified. "===

I'm still confused why they make fun of ID, then hijack ID concepts and use them in their Evo-World experimentation to prove lack of intelligence required in evolution, then get offended when you point out the hypocracy of them using purpose and intent. Must be the Dogma of the heart.

So apparently it goes like this:

"Darwinian evolution says nothing about the purpose to life at all – it simply states that adaptation will occur because what reproduces best will be reproduced more often."

'Purpose' is the function of a mind. We have minds, and our purposes vary.

You never tire of telling the world that science is driven by religion, and, in some cases there is some truth to that. But it is also true that your continuing rejection of common descent in the face of massive amounts of evidence reveals that you are driven by religion just as much as anyone else.

My question is, what is your religion? Or, more to the point, exactly what doctrine of your religion is it that drives your deep visceral contempt for evolution and all those who find the evidence for it convincing?

It's a good thing for us to figure out what our real motivations are. What are yours?

I'm helping you to open your eyes and reason rather than doing it for you. Go back to my list of scenarios. Would you conclude that one was certainly designed, one seemed likely, and two were inconclusive? Most importantly, why would you draw those conclusions? Is it a sound basis for drawing conclusions? What would you think if someone rejected those conclusions?

So, if a tree falls across a river or a canyon, and it enables you and other creatures to cross the stream or canyon, does the fallen tree provide a function, was the tree designed to be a bridge, and was its falling in that position/location designed?

There's no conclusive reason to say that it was designed. Trees fall. Anything can have function. Tom Hanks can break open a coconut with a rock, but that doesn't mean that someone designed the rock.

Why is helping you to reason on the matter a 'childish diversionary game?' I've never seen children play that game. How is discussing the very question at hand a diversion?

badwiring, you're still playing games and you still haven't answered my very reasonable and relevant questions.

Here they are again:

Is a bridge something that intelligent agents design?

"Compare that to our observations of anything randomly organizing to create function. That would be none, ever."

So, if a tree falls across a river or a canyon, and it enables you and other creatures to cross the stream or canyon, does the fallen tree provide a function, was the tree designed to be a bridge, and was its falling in that position/location designed?

-----------------------------------

And you really should learn to reason, and open your own eyes, before offering to help others do so.

So that there's no misunderstanding, Eocene, you did post this, didn't you?

Eocene said...

Hawks:

"Funny how I never use falsifiability as a weapon against opposing ideas. It's almost like you're trying to make me look like a hypocrite. You fail miserably, however."

Cornelius:

"No, that was not my intention."===

The truly funny thing is that they make themselves come off as hypocrite which never required your help in the least. They do it to themselves and blame you for making them look like fools. As you've stated before, "You just can't make this stuff up."---

Natchuster:

"What I don't understand is why people say that Id is not falsifiable, they say that it has been falsified. "===

I'm still confused why they make fun of ID, then hijack ID concepts and use them in their Evo-World experimentation to prove lack of intelligence required in evolution, then get offended when you point out the hypocracy of them using purpose and intent. Must be the Dogma of the heart.

So apparently it goes like this:

"Darwinian evolution says nothing about the purpose to life at all – it simply states that adaptation will occur because what reproduces best will be reproduced more often."

'Purpose' is the function of a mind. We have minds, and our purposes vary.

badwiring: Again, lip service to characteristics, but natural selection is defined by differential reproduction and survival.

Natural selection is differential reproduction *due* to differential variations, and it can be directly observed and measured. A simple example is to put antibiotics into a culture of bacteria. Some bacteria will be better at surviving and reproducing, and become more predominant in the population, and we can show that there are phenotypic variations that cause this to happen. Furthermore, we can show that the initial variations are random with respect to the presence of the antibiotics.

You never tire of telling the world that science is driven by religion, and, in some cases there is some truth to that.

Yes, there are several arguments for the fact of evolution. They all entail theological claims (or philosophical claims which ultimately trace back to theological claims) about god.

But it is also true that your continuing rejection of common descent in the face of massive amounts of evidence reveals that you are driven by religion just as much as anyone else.

From a scientific perspective common descent is unlikely. It is true there is evidence for common descent, just as there is plenty of evidence for a flat earth, geocentrism, etc.

My question is, what is your religion?

I am a Christian, which unlike many religions, affords me a wide spectrum of explanations for origins, ranging from secondary (natural) to primary (miracle) causes.

Or, more to the point, exactly what doctrine of your religion is it that drives your deep visceral contempt for evolution …?

There is a long history of empiricism in Christian thought. Rather than imposing a framework or answer on science a priori regardless of which way the evidence points, as evolutionists do, I believe in allowing the evidence to speak for itself.

I’m not saying rationalism has no place or that blindly following the evidence solves all problems. I would agree there is, necessarily, a mix. Nor am I saying that rationalism, itself, is fallacious.

But extreme rationalism, and evolution is a good example of this, is susceptible to confirmation bias and misrepresentation of the empirical evidence. Never let an extreme rationalist represent empirical science. That would be like having a Republican speak for Obama.

From an empirical science perspective, evolution’s failure is truly epic. There are 27 orders of magnitude between evolution’s expectations and reality. And that is going by the evolutionist’s own reckoning (in reality it is 100+ orders of magnitude). No theory in the history of science comes anywhere close to this epic failure. It is another creation myth that over and over is scientifically ridiculous.

I much prefer empiricism to mythology. From a religious perspective I can take it or leave it. It doesn’t matter to me if the earth is old or young, if God used primary or secondary causes, etc. But by the same token, I am against superimposing a religious framework on the evidence as evolution does, and force fitting the evidence into that framework when otherwise it obviously doesn’t fit.

As usual, Cornelius is attempting to leverage a myth of inductivism to advance his agenda. The myth is: Science makes predictions about what we will experience, rather that how things *are*.

For example, you may be familiar with the classic example of the problem of induction: Just because the sun has risen in the past, this doesn't mean the sun will rise tomorrow.

But the problem of induction also impacts what we will experience in relation to the future and the past. As such, the predictions of scientific theories are based on how things *are*, not what we will experience.

To return to my example, had we never actually experienced cloud cover, our theories of optics and geometry would tell us not to expect to see a sunrise on a cloudy day. Nor would we conceder this an instance of the sun falling to rise, even if it actually occurring while obscured from our view.

Where is induction in this process?

Should we observe the sun rising in mirror or on video, while simultaneously observing it in the sky one morning, our theories of how things *are* tells us this experience does not represent multiple sun rises. Nor does the observation of the sun rising multiple times (or failure to observe it at all) in a span of 24 hours while in earth's orbit.

It's only from these theories that we know that our observations of the sun under these conditions does not equate to an instance of the sun failing to rise, or rising multiple times. Induction fails to address how we can distinguish between these conclusions.

Evolutionary predictions are no different.

Just as theories about how things *are* determine not only how we interpret the present, they reflect our interpretations of the past as well. We do not know what happened in the past in the sense of an empirical mandate, but based on our theories of out best explanations of how things *are*.

Apples could have fallen up while someone wasn't looking in the past. But they could also be falling up right now in some un-observed location in the present, as well. In both cases, it's only through theories about how things *are* can we even being to make sense of these things.

Cornelius portrays the role of theory as some sort of corruption of science. However, he fails to explain how we can gain knowledge in it's absence.

Nor has he responded to direct requests to disclose his positions on this issue.

01. Does Cornelius think there is an solution to the problem of induction. If so, what is it?

02. Where does Cornelius put divine revelation in the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy?

I'm asking because you've latched on to the false conclusion make by Popper, which he clearly admitted to was a "misrepresentation" of natural selection, then started "digging" elsewhere looking for support.

If you can't recognize the argument is bad in the first place, what makes you think you can recognize additional evidence that supports it on a PBS website?

In practice natural selection is real. Plants immune to a fungus survive while others die. Bacteria can adapt to antibiotics. This demonstrates the value of biodiversity and why it's beneficial that we aren't all clones of one another.But the limitations are also real. Natural selection doesn't create anything new. Tens of thousands of generations of bacteria produce nearly identical bacteria.When we take these observations and attempt to apply them to a larger scale and historically, then it becomes tautological, because we can only conclude that whatever lives or lived was at some point selected.I can make dots on a paper with a marker but that's a poor explanation for how buildings get painted. Unless, that is, I rule out paint and choose only to believe in markers. Then it's all I have so I have to stick to it.

badwiring: When we take these observations and attempt to apply them to a larger scale and historically, then it becomes tautological, because we can only conclude that whatever lives or lived was at some point selected.

No. In the case of the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, we can demonstrate improved high-frequency hearing.

In practice selection is something so fairly obvious as not to need a word.

No. In the case of the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, we can demonstrate improved high-frequency hearing.

Eventually I'll have to quit replying and get on to something productive. Of course we can show that one ear provides better hearing than another. But you cannot use selection to explain how it came about and use it as evidence of selection. Do you really not understand why that is textbook circular reasoning?

This type of reasoning is the foundation on which the house is built. It must be true, so every observation is both confirmation and evidence. And surprisingly, there are mountains upon mountains of evidence!

badwiring: In practice selection is something so fairly obvious as not to need a word.

The word was apparently needed when Darwin coined the phrase. Instead of populations being in relative stasis, they change, with heritable variations that provide a reproductive advantage tending to become predominant.

badwiring: Of course we can show that one ear provides better hearing than another.

Okay.

badwiring: But you cannot use selection to explain how it came about and use it as evidence of selection.

You are confusing variation with selection.

It "came about" because it was within normal range of natural variation in the shapes and configurations of the individual components. It was selected because it provided a reproductive advantage in the given environment.

"Do you really not understand why that is textbook circular reasoning?"

No, they don't. I've been going around with individuals like this for a few years and they really cannot comprehend that a large amount of their argumentation is circular in nature. Animals look similar because they evolved. How do we know they evolved? Because they look similar. They truly think this type of reasoning is solid evidence and logical. Trying to point this fallacy out to them is completely futile. They either can't see it or refuse to see it. You must be commended for your patience.

Eventually I'll have to quit replying and get on to something productive. Of course we can show that one ear provides better hearing than another. But you cannot use selection to explain how it came about and use it as evidence of selection. Do you really not understand why that is textbook circular reasoning?

If all we had was the series of fossils with no dates, no other evidence then it would be circular reasoning. But the fact is we have tons of other evidence. It's a fact we can arrange the fossils in a temporal sequence. It's a fact the temporal sequence shows a smooth transition in the morphology. It's a fact the more recent the morphology, the better the hearing range. It's a fact that in most environments, better hearing is a selective advantage. It's a fact that the evolutionary adaptive feedback process of random variations filtered by selection drives populations towards higher fitness peaks. It's a fact we have ample other genetic and fossil evidence besides just the jaw-ear transition that indicates synapsid evolutionary history.

Sure, the Magic Ear Fairy could have *poofed* all those specimens into existence and buried them in temporal order. But Evolution is by far the most parsimonious and consilient explanation for ALL the empirical data.

When you Creationists get over the stupid idea that each piece of evidence must be examined in a vacuum, maybe you will start to understand science. But for now you deserve to be laughed at.

"Do you really not understand why that is textbook circular reasoning?"

No, they don't. I've been going around with individuals like this for a few years and they really cannot comprehend that a large amount of their argumentation is circular in nature. Animals look similar because they evolved. How do we know they evolved? Because they look similar. They truly think this type of reasoning is solid evidence and logical.

Since that stupid strawman has nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory, what is your point? The actual reasoning goes

1. Evolutionary adaptive feedback processes (i.e common descent with modification) in general always produce certain distinct features, like nested hierarchies and transitional features as the loop works to optimize fitness.

2. Evolutionary adaptive feedback processes are observed to be present and working in living species today.

3. All the evidence to date from the fossil and genetic records is consistent with the same evolutionary adaptive feedback processes being present and working in past species.

4. Given the data we have now, evolutionary adaptive feedback processes are the most parsimonious explanation for the observed history and diversity of life.

You really need to learn about the topic before you attempt to criticize it.

Pedant, yes morphology has been used extensively by evolutionist to show descent... hence their "tree of life". But DNA comparisons yield different results, which is contradictory to morphology (Sea Squirts, etc, etc). Even evolutionists are hard pressed to provide even willy nilly explanations for why the different results. Having hung their hopes on morphology for 150 years, DNA is laying the axe to evolutionists cherished tree. The Congress and President stand a much better chance at resolving the national debt than evolutionists do at resolving all the problems with their tree.

There you go changing the subject again. He was pointing out that natural selection is incapable of generating new genetic information, and you suddenly start talking about variation like that has anything to do with it.

Perhaps an analogy is in order. A cars breaks are incapable of generating forward thrust, which proves that cars can't move.

Prediction: you'll change the subject and start talking about some other part of the car completely. Just like an evolutionist.

Pedant, yes morphology has been used extensively by evolutionist to show descent... hence their "tree of life". But DNA comparisons yield different results, which is contradictory to morphology (Sea Squirts, etc, etc).

So what? Tedford, you don't give a dam about sea squirts. What sticks in your craw is that you are an ape.

"So what? Tedford, you don't give a dam about sea squirts. What sticks in your craw is that you are an ape."===

Incredible. If this isn't the old bloated Razorbacked WartHog calling a piglet Soo-Wee.---

Cornelius wrote: "But epicycles are not free. In this case, the marshalling of HGTs as the explanation for biology’s patterns and success raises the question of where these complex mechanisms came from in the first place."

Of course, it's their number one on the list of 'Articles of Faith'.---

Cornelius, I don't know if you've ever read a book by author Kevin Kelly called "Out Of Control", but he puts together a well simple to understand explanation for the public on just how vicious the Orthodox Darwinian Clerics can be to even their own kind if they go against the prevailing religiosity on Biology. The book is actually comparing the brilliant biological systems of nature and making practical aplication to computer systems and other technology. The entire book is online on his website. Here's a chapter #19 you'll appreciate.

As usual, Cornelius is attempting to leverage a myth of inductivism to advance his agenda. The myth is: Science makes predictions about what we will experience, rather that how things *are*.

For example, you may be familiar with the classic example of the problem of induction: Just because the sun has risen in the past, this doesn't mean the sun will rise tomorrow.

But the problem of induction also impacts what we will experience in relation to the future and the past. As such, the predictions of scientific theories are based on how things *are*, not what we will experience.====

As usual this is another hilarious manuscript. No need to address everything. When Cornelius uses logic to prove that design is a more likely possibility, then you tell him he can't do that, that he's breaking the rules. Cornelius is doing exactly what the Evolutionists here have been demanding of Cornelius to do all along, which is back up his statements with reason and logic and scientific evidence. All he's done, unlike the gang here is close the gap between what is inference and what is proof using logic and reasonable investigation. From what I've observed, he's always been clear on what he can prove deductively and what he infers.

It's funny how everytime you bring up these timewasting ranting on manuscripts against his use of inductive reasoning, you yourself use induction.

1. Evolutionary adaptive feedback processes (ie common descent with modification) in general always produce certain distinct features, like nested hierarchies and transitional features as the loop works to optimize fitness."

First, is it 'in general' or 'always?'

Second, thank you for a very concise example of the circular reasoning processes to which you all fall victim. Do you not see this or have you just deluded yourself that this is not the case?

"Darwinian evolution says nothing about the purpose to life at all – it simply states that adaptation will occur because what reproduces best will be reproduced more often."

'Purpose' is the function of a mind. We have minds, and our purposes vary.

------------------------------------------

Now take a real good look at it. There are NO quote marks around the second paragraph. There ARE quote marks around the first paragraph. I attributed the second paragraph to you, which was appropriate since you used no quote marks, and you didn't say that someone else said those words, and you didn't attribute those words to Elizabeth Liddle or anyone else.

So, dumbass, learn how to write, quote, and punctuate, and don't blame me for you being an IDiot.

"So, dumbass, learn how to write, quote, and punctuate, and don't blame me for you being an IDiot."===

No "quote" marks ???

Maybe you should learn a better vocabulary. Guess they didn't teach those things at TalkRational University.

BTW, most evolutionists are the true IDiots, since they have the bad habit of trashing Intelligent Designing concepts, ideas and principles, then hijack these for their own experimental purposes and then later claim they did no such thing when called on the carpet for cheating.----

velikovskys:This post has been removed by a blog administrator.===

Hmmmmmmm one could only wonder what gems from the sewer came over from the safe-haven forum where the neanderthals congregate "After the Bar Closes".

1. Evolutionary adaptive feedback processes (ie common descent with modification) in general always produce certain distinct features, like nested hierarchies and transitional features as the loop works to optimize fitness."

First, is it 'in general' or 'always?'

All as in the general case, not specifically biological evolution. All produce nested hierarchies and transitional forms as the iterations progress.

Second, thank you for a very concise example of the circular reasoning processes to which you all fall victim. Do you not see this or have you just deluded yourself that this is not the case?

No, thank you for a concise example of a Creationist hand-waving away reality with a pre-canned buzzphrase that he can't actually demonstrate.

Are you suggesting we can have a reasonable discussion on whether evolutionary is justified as a scientific theory without discussing the means by which theories are justified?

Are you suggesting that we can have a reasonable discussion on whether evolutionary theory has been falsified by empirical observations without discussing how predictions are related to scientific theories and empirical observations?

How is this not relevant?

In the absence of a solution to the problem of induction, Cornelius' objections to evolution is just hand waiving against a theory that conflicts with his religious beliefs.

Eocene: When Cornelius uses logic to prove that design is a more likely possibility, then you tell him he can't do that, that he's breaking the rules.

Cornelius can do whatever he wants.

In fact, what's important to note here is the argument Cornelius does *not* want to make. Specifically, he's *not* arguing that observed predictions cannot confirm a theories underlying explanation of the way things *are* is "True" with a capital 'T'.

Furthermore, my argument was specific to how predictions are related to theories. Predictions are not prophecy. They are not empirical mandates of reality. Yet, this is the criteria that Cornelius is using in his OP. Of course, he hasn't explicitly disclosed this criteria because divine revelation as a reliable source of knowledge is smuggled into his argument. He exploits the fact that he shares this assumption with his target audience.

Eocene: Cornelius is doing exactly what the Evolutionists here have been demanding of Cornelius to do all along, which is back up his statements with reason and logic and scientific evidence.

What Cornelius is doing is appealing to "probability" of a possibility. But what he hasn't done is indicate how is method for calculating this probably is anything more than naive empiricism. Without a solution to the problem of induction, Cornelius' interpretations of observations appear arbitrary.

Observations are theory laden. Nor can we even being to make sense out of observations in the absence of theory. As such, it's unclear how he can actually reach a conclusion as to what the probability is or even how to approach the problem without first using a theory based on conjecture, rather than generalizations of observations.

Again, it's unclear how we can have a reasonable discussion regarding what is or is not science without defining science. However, Cornelius refuses to disclose his position on several key issues. Nor does he seem to present a

Eocene: It's funny how everytime you bring up these timewasting ranting on manuscripts against his use of inductive reasoning, you yourself use induction.

No, I'm pointing out that Cornelius argument is essentially inductive in nature.

Again, to quote Deutsch…

Philosophers today yearn for this missing justification. They no longer believe that induction would provide it, yet they have an induction-shaped gap in their scheme of things, just as religious people who have lost their faith suffer from a ‘God-shaped gap’ in their scheme of things. But in my opinion there is little difference between having an X-shaped gap in one's scheme of things and believing in X. Hence to fit in with the more sophisticated conception of the problem of induction, I wish to redefine the term ‘inductivist’ to mean someone who believes that the invalidity of inductive justification is a problem for the foundations of science. In other words, an inductivist believes that there is a gap which must be filled, if not by a principle of induction then by something else.

However, Cornelius continually attempts to portray this problem as something unique to evolutionary theory and "evolutionists", rather than science as a whole and "scientists".

Pointing out blatant circular reasoning is not applying a 'pre-canned buzzphrase.

You try to refute an accusation of circular reasoning by supplying a classic example of circular reasoning as your rebuttal and then accuse me of hand waving when I point out your fallacy. It's actually quite pathetic. If your argument was not circular I would expect you to reply with an explanation as to why it was not circular. Instead I get you supplying another example of your amateur debating skills with a classic example of the hand waving of which you accuse me. Thank you, you just keep making my case for me. Please keep it up, you're very entertaining.

Pointing out blatant circular reasoning is not applying a 'pre-canned buzzphrase.

You try to refute an accusation of circular reasoning by supplying a classic example of circular reasoning as your rebuttal and then accuse me of hand waving when I point out your fallacy. It's actually quite pathetic. If your argument was not circular I would expect you to reply with an explanation as to why it was not circular. Instead I get you supplying another example of your amateur debating skills with a classic example of the hand waving of which you accuse me. Thank you, you just keep making my case for me. Please keep it up, you're very entertaining.

Wow, I hope you never get picked for jury duty.

Prosecutor: "We think Joe did it because

1. Joe's fingerprints were on the knife still embedded in the victim2. Joe's DNA was found under the fingernails of the victim, Joe has scratch marks on his face3. Joe's bloody footprints and handprints were found at the crime scene4. Blood splatters from the victim was found on Joe's clothes.5. Surveillance video shows Joe and the victim entering the crime scene at the time of the murder, only Joe leaving."

Gerry: "No, can't you see that's circular reasoning!!. Joe is guilty because we found his evidence. Why did we find his evidence? Because Joe is guilty."

If your argument was not circular I would expect you to reply with an explanation as to why it was not circular. Instead I get you supplying another example of your amateur debating skills with a classic

If the scientific argument for ToE was circular I'd expect you to point out exactly why it was circular, but you can't. Instead we get you mindlessly regurgitating from the big list of Creationist hand-waves:

"bad assumptions!""circular reasoning!""no one saw it!""evolution can't create new information!""dogs are still dogs!"

Watching you Creationists butcher logic as badly as you butcher science is a scream.

"I'd expect you to point out exactly why it was circular, but you can't."

Oh, but I can and quite easily.

Only one example, you claim morphology as originating through the process of evolution and then use morphology as proof of that process. That sir, is classic circular reasoning, and that is exactly what evolution claims. Apparently you're completely incapable of understanding that or are willfully ignoring the fact.

Evolution assumes the answer and then proceeds to interpret all evidence in order to make it fit that answer. That is not science.

Also, all the little 'hand waves' you listed at the end are perfectly logical and justified arguments against the claims of evolution. Any breeder of animals will tell you there are hard limits to what can be accomplished by selective breeding. Dog breeding or animal breeding of any kind is NOT a friend of evolution.

You accuse creationists of poor logic and science when in fact it is those who profess evolution who ignore logic and practice questionable science.

Like I said, keep it up, it's very entertaining watching you stumble about.

In the FoR, Deutsch elaborates on this further by devoting an entire chapter to a hypothetical dialog between himself and a crypto-inductivist.

Once it all started to "click" it was a real eye opener.

Deutsch's new book, The Beginning of Infinity, was released this month and is available on iTunes as an ebook. The BoI summaries some of his more recent talks and builds on his argument that explanations have a fundamental place in the universe.

Specifically, Deutsch argues we represent a category of "being" capable of indefinitely acquiring and using this knowledge (explanations) by virtue of being universal explainers and universal constructors.

The implications are quite significant, and relevant to claims regarding the supposed limits of explanations made here on a regular basis. He also applies his approach gaining knowledge on a wide range of subjects, including politics, sustainability and education.

"I'd expect you to point out exactly why it was circular, but you can't."

Oh, but I can and quite easily.

Only one example, you claim morphology as originating through the process of evolution and then use morphology as proof of that process. That sir, is classic circular reasoning, and that is exactly what evolution claims. Apparently you're completely incapable of understanding that or are willfully ignoring the fact.

Since I've already pointed out that's just a stupid strawman and not the rationale behind the scientific conclusion of common descent, why do you keep repeating the nonsense? I assume it's your ignorance of how actual scientific methods of inquiry are done.

Evolution assumes the answer and then proceeds to interpret all evidence in order to make it fit that answer. That is not science.

LOL! Dead wrong. The empirical evidence - morphological change over deep time - was gathered first. From the empirical evidence then came the hypothesis that common descent was the explanation. It just so happens that all additional evidence gathered since the first inference supports the hypothesis, enough support that the hypothesis has achieved the status of theory.

If you don't understand even the most basic things about how scientific investigations proceed and how hypotheses become theories there's not much hope for you.

Also, all the little 'hand waves' you listed at the end are perfectly logical and justified arguments against the claims of evolution. Any breeder of animals will tell you there are hard limits to what can be accomplished by selective breeding. Dog breeding or animal breeding of any kind is NOT a friend of evolution

Selective breeding only involves the short term selection and mixing of the existing genes in the gene pool. Any such limits there are not representative of limits on long term genetic changes due to the formation of new genetic material by empirically observed processes like gene duplication, point mutations, frame shifts, insertions/deletions, etc. That's Biology 101, which is why most Creationists don't understand it.

I expect this is the point where you will claim to be a practicing scientist in one field or another.

It wouldn't matter if I was a garbageman. I can still demonstrate your ignorance and lack of reasoning skills, and back up what I say with research from the primary scientific literature.

Any breeder of animals will tell you there are hard limits to what can be accomplished by selective breeding. Dog breeding or animal breeding of any kind is NOT a friend of evolution

Maybe an analogy will help you understand just how dumb the "selective breeding disproves evolution" argument really is.

Let's say you observe your co-worker's clothing over a period of months. You notice he rotates between 5 shirts, 3 pairs of slacks, 2 pairs of shoes for a total of 30 distinct outfits.

From that data you conclude that he must have worn those same 30 outfits his whole life - as a child, in elementary school through college, as an adult in previous jobs. You also insist there is no process where he could wear different clothes in the future.

We show you a process where he can get new clothes, show you that the process has been available for centuries, show you photo evidence of him in hundreds of other outfits over the years prior to now but no, you insist those 30 combinations are the hard limit.

It's obvious you do not know the meaning of equivocation, but why am I not surprised. Trying to draw a comparison between two totally unrelated situations is a logical fallacy and you're committing it in spades here. The burden of proof required in law is different than that required in science. In law one is only required to present evidence sufficient to remove reasonable doubt, not all doubt. It does not deal with the truth or falseness of the question at hand. This fact is demonstrated by the miscarriages of justice which litter every legal jurisdiction in the world.

Everything you present as evidence against Joe is purely circumstantial. It does not remove all doubt, only sufficient doubt. Joe could still be innocent. There are other explanations for the origin of the evidence being used against Joe, but as it is only required to be reasonable, the guilty verdict is sustainable in law.

Science on the other hand MUST deal with truth or falseness of a question. A reasonable explanation does not establish truth as required by science. If you have a reasonable explanation for a particular phenomenon, but it is in fact not the correct answer, of what use is it?. Close does not count in science. Reasonable explanations are of no use.

As for your appeal for the judge to remove me from the jury, sorry, that doesn't fly in law. In law one is entitled to hold a dissenting opinion, unlike modern science when it comes to the question of evolution. This fact also points out another fallacy of your reasoning processes, the idea that you can appeal to the majority as proof of the correctness of your position. Get rid of the dissenting voice on the jury and we win. Can't do it in law, can't do it in science.

Why the morphology argument is circular while the Joe argument is not is painfully obvious to anyone with the ability to critically and logically analyze the data. In the morphology/evolution/morphology argument each one is being used as supportive evidence to explain the other. That is not the case with Joe, nor is it the question in play.

Well I guess that settles that. Thorton has declared the circular reasoning criticism is a strawman. End of discussion.

Your protestations mean nothing in light of the facts. Morphology is used to support evolution and evolution is used to explain morphology. No matter how much you try to tap dance around it, that is circular reasoning and as such is fallacious. It's obvious you simply do not grasp that.

"Selective breeding only involves the short term selecting and mixing of the existing genes in the gene pool. Any such limits there are not representative of long term genetic changes..."

And exactly how do you know that? The gene duplication, etc., that you refer to have not demonstrated that continued dog breeding will eventually lead to anything but dogs. Gene duplication is just that, duplication. So you're not presenting any scientific facts, you're only presenting speculation as to the long term results. That's not science, that's story telling.

It's obvious you do not know the meaning of equivocation, but why am I not surprised. Trying to draw a comparison between two totally unrelated situations is a logical fallacy and you're committing it in spades here.

The situations are identical. We start with an observation, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis by gathering more evidence, decide if the hypothesis is correct.

Everything you present as evidence against Joe is purely circumstantial. It does not remove all doubt, only sufficient doubt. Joe could still be innocent. There are other explanations for the origin of the evidence being used against Joe, but as it is only required to be reasonable, the guilty verdict is sustainable in law.

All the evidence for Toe is circumstantial, even though there is metric tons of it. It does not remove all doubt, only sufficient doubt. Other explanations are possible (i.e. the FSM), but the current explanation is deemed reasonable by virtually everyone who studies and uses it.

Science on the other hand MUST deal with truth or falseness of a question. A reasonable explanation does not establish truth as required by science. If you have a reasonable explanation for a particular phenomenon, but it is in fact not the correct answer, of what use is it?. Close does not count in science. Reasonable explanations are of no use.

See, that's why I know you're amazingly ignorant about how science works. ALL scientific theories are considered tentative, even ToE. ALL are open to revision pending the introduction of new evidence, even ToE.

Evolutionary theory has been a more than satisfactory explanation for observed phenomena for over 150 years. It is the basis for all work in modern biology and genetics. It is used successfully by thousands of companies and professional labs and hundreds of thousands of researchers. If you have something that works better, publish it and you'll become a millionaire.

As for your appeal for the judge to remove me from the jury, sorry, that doesn't fly in law. In law one is entitled to hold a dissenting opinion, unlike modern science when it comes to the question of evolution.

You are entitled to hold a dissenting opinion in science too. However, if you expect anyone else in the scientific community to take your claims seriously you have to support them. That's where you IDCers fail every time.

Why the morphology argument is circular while the Joe argument is not is painfully obvious to anyone with the ability to critically and logically analyze the data.

That sure leaves you out. Have fun flogging that poor Creationist strawman. The real scientists will just keep laughing.

Your protestations mean nothing in light of the facts. Morphology is used to support evolution and evolution is used to explain morphology. No matter how much you try to tap dance around it, that is circular reasoning and as such is fallacious. It's obvious you simply do not grasp that.

"The forensic evidence against Joe is used to support Joe being the killer. Joe being the killer explains the forensic evidence." CIRCULAR REASONING!!

Like I said, watching you Creationists butcher logic is as entertaining as watching you butcher science.

And exactly how do you know that? The gene duplication, etc., that you refer to have not demonstrated that continued dog breeding will eventually lead to anything but dogs. Gene duplication is just that, duplication. So you're not presenting any scientific facts, you're only presenting speculation as to the long term results. That's not science, that's story telling.

Looks like even my dumbed down clothes analogy still went over your head. I'm not sure I can make it any simpler, you'll just have to try harder.

This is a clear illustration of your amazingly poor critical thinking skills. The situations are not at all similar. In the case of morphology/evolution each factor needs explanation (ie. there are two hypotheses) and each hypothesis is explained by appealing to the other. That is circular reasoning. Do you understand that? In the case of Joe only one hypothesis exists, did Joe kill the victim. The victim is not an hypothesis, it's a fact. The presence of Joe's DNA is not a hypothesis, it's a fact. Therefore, you only need to gather evidence to support one hypothesis, did Joe commit the crime. So we are only going one way, from the DNA to Joe, we are not going from Joe to the DNA. Can you not see that?

Well, at least we're agreed on that, it was a dumb analogy. Your so-called analogy was nothing more than an appeal to speculative evidence. I'm curious as to where you have 'photos of dogs in other outfits' as it were. By the way, appealing to animal breeding in support of evolution presents you with a problem in that the breeding process involves intelligent input with a specific goal in mind. Hardly comparative to evolution. Any port in a storm I guess. Stumble on.

Gerry: In the case of Joe only one hypothesis exists, did Joe kill the victim.

Well, no. There are usually a number of competing hypotheses. Did Joe just stumble upon the murder scene? Was he involved, but just a witness? Did he do it premeditated, or was it anger? What was his state of mind? And so on.

Gerry: Only one example, you claim morphology as originating through the process of evolution and then use morphology as proof of that process. That sir, is classic circular reasoning, and that is exactly what evolution claims.

No. It's a classic strawman. Specific patterns in morphology are explained by the Theory of Evolution. This hypothesis is used to predict novel phenomena in often unrelated data. So, for instance, we might predict the fossil content of geological strata from embryological data, or we might predict that life preceded the Cambrian Explosion, or specific characteristics to be found in fossil organisms in particular strata.

If you were to propose a different hypothesis, and make specific and entailed predictions, then we could test those too.

Not at all. All the factors you list are simply components of the single hypothesis, did Joe commit the murder? Premeditation or anger do not effect whether or not Joe committed the crime as they would only become relevant after it was proven he did.

"No it's a classic strawman."

I wish I had a dollar for every time one of you guys have attempted to refute an argument by labeling it a straw man. This seems to be the favourite argument of evolutionists. If we don't like what is being presented we'll just jump up and down waving our arms and yell 'straw man, straw man!' It is not a straw man argument. If you insist on pointing to morphology as indicative of evolution and then use evolution to explain morphology you are engaging in circular reasoning. There is no way out. Wave your arms and say it's a straw man all you want. Take out ads in national newspapers if you wish, it won't change the facts.

Gerry: All the factors you list are simply components of the single hypothesis, did Joe commit the murder? Premeditation or anger do not effect whether or not Joe committed the crime as they would only become relevant after it was proven he did.

Each hypothesis has its own entailments. If Joe was merely a witness then it has different empirical implications with regards to the evidence. The reasons and motivations that Joe had can be important, and also have empirical implications. It may not even have been a crime, depending on the circumstances, for instance, in the case of self-defense or an accident. The evidence has to be considered with respect to some explanatory framework. These are all standard components of any forensic investigation, and criminal trials always concern competing hypothetical explanations. You do understand that forensic science concerns legal matters?

Gerry: If you insist on pointing to morphology as indicative of evolution and then use evolution to explain morphology you are engaging in circular reasoning.

One doesn't point to some vague "morphology", but to specific patterns, and whether or not you can use the hypothesis to deduce testable empirical predictions, such as organisms with transitional characteristics like Archaeopteryx.

Gerry: I wish I had a dollar for every time one of you guys have attempted to refute an argument by labeling it a straw man.

We provided a detailed rebuttal. The reason it is a strawman is because it is a false representation of the position you are arguing against. When this was pointed out to you, you repeated the same strawman.

This is a clear illustration of your amazingly poor critical thinking skills. The situations are not at all similar. In the case of morphology/evolution each factor needs explanation (ie. there are two hypotheses) and each hypothesis is explained by appealing to the other.

No. Similar morphology of extant animals is an empirically observed fact. The temporal distribution of the fossils is a fact. The clear transitional patterns formed by distinct sequences of fossils is a fact. The best fit nested hierarchy that can be created from the fossil record is a fact. That the phylogenetic tree found in genetic record matches the one in the fossil record to better than 99.9% is a fact.

A single hypothesis, common descent, was proposed to explain the above facts.

That is circular reasoning. Do you understand that?

I understand you have no clue as to what 'circular reasoning' even means. You read the term on a Creationist site and are mindlessly regurgitating it. You certainly haven't demonstrated it here.

"Animals look similar because they evolved." is a hypothesis.

"They evolved because they look similar." is not a hypothesis, it's the inference from the evidence, an inference supported by thousands of other factual observations.

In the case of Joe only one hypothesis exists, did Joe kill the victim. The victim is not an hypothesis, it's a fact.

And only one scientific hypothesis was being tested, does common descent over deep time explain the observed facts. The specimens and the distribution of the fossil record is not an hypothesis, it's a fact.

The presence of Joe's DNA is not a hypothesis, it's a fact.

The patterns in the genetic record are not a hypothesis, they're a fact.

Therefore, you only need to gather evidence to support one hypothesis, did Joe commit the crime.

Exactly like scientists did for ToE.

So we are only going one way, from the DNA to Joe, we are not going from Joe to the DNA. Can you not see that?

So we are only going one way also, from the empirically observed facts to the inference of common descent. Your religious bias and ignorance is stopping you from seeing that.

How incredibly dense are you? This whole discussion has been over the fact that you insist on using morphology to prove evolution, and evolution to explain morphology and my position that that is circular reasoning. So how do you suppose asserting morphology of extant animals as proof of evolution is going to fly with me? Incredible!

As for the genetic record matching the fossil record, I'm curious, what have you been smoking?

"Animals look similar because they evolved" may be a hypothesis in your world, but animals look similar because they evolved and evolution is true because animals look similar is circular reasoning. You may believe this is not what you're saying, but the simple fact is that is exactly what you're arguing.

I understand very well what constitutes circular reasoning . This is such a simple, blatant example of circular reasoning I find it incredible you cannot see it. I guess if you keep telling yourself over and over again that it's a sound argument, you actually end up believing it.

"So we are going one way also,..."

Only if you start from the assumption of common descent which you support by appealing to morphology. Thus your circular argument. Is that ever going to register with you? I seriously doubt it.

"Clear transitional patterns..."

Are you serious? How out of date are you? Where do you find 'clear transitional patterns of fossils?' What are you going to try, Ida or the old classic coelacanth? Where are you coming up with this stuff. Have you been out of your basement in the last 20 years? This is just incredibly funny. It's a good thing I'm going away for a few days, I don't know how much more of this nonsense I can take.

"Science on the other hand MUST deal with truth or falseness of a question. A reasonable explanation does not establish truth as required by science. If you have a reasonable explanation for a particular phenomenon, but it is in fact not the correct answer, of what use is it?. Close does not count in science. Reasonable explanations are of no use."

Science does not require absolute truth or falseness. In many cases it cannot determine truth or falseness, at least yet. In many cases it can. A lot of science is in progress. Do you think that science should just stop, and not even bother looking for evidence, proof, truth, falseness, or reasonable explanations, since it can't just come up with the absolute truth of falseness of absolutely everything in a nanosecond?

If science knows that a "reasonable explanation" is "in fact not the correct answer", then it is not considered a reasonable explanation.

What "truth" or "falseness" do you think is the "truth" or "falseness" about everything, and how do you know that it is in fact the correct answer?

Gerry said:

"In law one is entitled to hold a dissenting opinion, unlike modern science when it comes to the question of evolution. This fact also points out another fallacy of your reasoning processes, the idea that you can appeal to the majority as proof of the correctness of your position."

Anyone can hold any opinion they like, but it's unreasonable to expect science to listen to it unless it has evidential support. That is, scientifically testable, evidential support. I could opine that god is the bastard child of the FSM and Bigfoot and that flying purple people eaters are responsible for all missing humans but I doubt that anyone in science would take me seriously. I could probably find someone who would believe it though, because some people will believe anything, as is shown by the world's religions.

Gerry said:

"Your protestations mean nothing in light of the facts. Morphology is used to support evolution and evolution is used to explain morphology. No matter how much you try to tap dance around it, that is circular reasoning and as such is fallacious. It's obvious you simply do not grasp that."

Of course using completely unsupported fairy tales about god/religious beliefs to support god/religious beliefs isn't circular? Show me even one piece of actual scientific evidence of your chosen god.

You and your fellow god pushers might want to seriously think about your "Your protestations mean nothing in light of the facts." comment.

Gerry said:

"That's not science, that's story telling."

Thank you for that description of religion/ID/creationism.

Gerry said:

"You present speculation and insist it's evidence."

And thank you for that description of religion pushers, IDiots, and creationists.

"If Joe was just a witness then it has different empirical implications with regards to the evidence."

Well DUH! If the hypothesis was that Joe committed the murder then it is to be expected the evidence would take on different implications if it was shown he was only a witness. How long did you have to think that one through?

My position is clear that this analogy does not constitute a multiple hypothesis scenario equivalent to the morphology/evolution argument and is therefore not a sound analogy. Nothing in this paragraph even remotely addresses that question, so what is your point?

"Forensic science concerns legal matters."

And this relates to the topic how?

"One doesn't point to some vague morphology..."

Vague, specific, detailed, whatever you want. Arguing that morphology comes by evolution and morphology points to evolution is circular reasoning. Maybe its fancier circular reasoning if you put a lot of detail in it, but it is circular reasoning nonetheless.

"We provided a detailed rebuttal."

Are you serious? You provided a really lousy analogy which was clearly shown to be completely pointless.

"You repeated the same straw man."

So, here we go again. It's a straw man! It's a straw man! As if you shout it long enough and often enough it will become true. Sorry, you can't escape the facts. I suppose you can delude yourself into believing what you chant. However, facts are facts. C'est la vie.

How incredibly dense are you? This whole discussion has been over the fact that you insist on using morphology to prove evolution, and evolution to explain morphology and my position that that is circular reasoning.

" How incredibly dense are you? This whole discussion has been over the fact that you insist on using forensic evidence to prove Joe's guilt, and Joe's guilt to explain forensic evidence and my position that that is circular reasoning."

LOL! Actually the discussion has been about your stupid strawman claim that science uses morphology to 'prove' evolution when in fact morphology is only one of many independent lines of evidence used to infer evolution. But like most Creationists you get a dumb idea stuck in your craw and refuse to learn about the scientific reality.

So how do you suppose asserting morphology of extant animals as proof of evolution is going to fly with me? Incredible!

Given your track record of amazing willful ignorance on the subject I'd say nothing anyone shows you will penetrate your titanium dome. Fortunately, science doesn't rely on the uneducated opinions of ignorant laymen.

As for the genetic record matching the fossil record, I'm curious, what have you been smoking?

You may believe this is not what you're saying, but the simple fact is that is exactly what you're arguing.

Double LOL! Despite being corrected by numerous people you insist on telling others what their words mean. Let me try that. Gerry, you keep saying "ToE uses circular logic" but what you are really saying is "I'm an ignorant Creationist who thinks that blind repetition of dumb arguments will win the day". How's that?

Only if you start from the assumption of common descent which you support by appealing to morphology.

Science didn't start with the assumption of common descent, just like the police didn't start with the assumption of Joe's guilt. Both were inferences made after the factual evidence was examined.

Are you serious? How out of date are you? Where do you find 'clear transitional patterns of fossils?'

"This whole discussion has been over the fact you insist on using forensic evidence to prove Joe's guilt and Joe's guilt to explain the forensic evidence..."

First, it was you who introduced Joe, not me.

Second, you demonstrate quite nicely with this paragraph that you posses little or no skill in the construction of arguments or the ability to think critically or analytically. Yes, the forensic evidence can be used to prove Joe's guilt. However, it is not necessary for Joe to be guilty to explain the forensic evidence. Do you understand that or do you still operate under the fallacy that your scenario is a sound analogy for the argument against evolution/morphology?

"Morphology is only one of many independent lines of evidence..."

And that makes it not a circular argument how?

"Science didn't start with assumption of common descent..."

That's very true, science did not start with such an assumption, but evolution did, and evolution is what you're trying to defend. Do not confuse evolution with science, they are not the same.

Thank you for the references to transitional fossils, etc. I read them years ago.

"This whole discussion has been over the fact you insist on using forensic evidence to prove Joe's guilt and Joe's guilt to explain the forensic evidence..."

First, it was you who introduced Joe, not me.

Yep, as a way of demonstrating just how silly your Creationist strawman argument is. Worked pretty well too.

Second, you demonstrate quite nicely with this paragraph that you posses little or no skill in the construction of arguments or the ability to think critically or analytically. Yes, the forensic evidence can be used to prove Joe's guilt. However, it is not necessary for Joe to be guilty to explain the forensic evidence.

The scientific evidence can be used to establish the veracity of common descent beyond all reasonable doubt, just as the overwhelming evidence in my hypothetical Joe case can be used to convict Joe. However, it is not necessary for common descent to be true to explain the scientific evidence. The FSM could have *poofed* the evidence into existence last Tuesday. Common descent is not 'proven'. It is just the best inference by far for the empirically observed data, beyond all reasonable doubt.

"Morphology is only one of many independent lines of evidence..."

And that makes it not a circular argument how?

Similar morphology in extant animals doesn't depend on common descent being true. Common morphology is an empirically observed fact that requires an explanation whether you hypothesize evolution or not. You can't seem to get your mind around that important fact.

"Science didn't start with assumption of common descent..."

That's very true, science did not start with such an assumption, but evolution did, and evolution is what you're trying to defend. Do not confuse evolution with science, they are not the same.

LOL! Now you're going to try and rewrite history? Darwin didn't start with the assumption that common descent was true, he started with empirical observations - patterns of similarities between species. Only after decades of pondering did he propose the hypothesis of common descent to explain the data. The hypothesis has been incredibly well tested and has been confirmed to such a degree that it now has the status of scientific theory. At no time in the process was any of the reasoning behind the inference circular.

I know your religious beliefs desperately need it to be circular so can hand-wave away the parts that threaten you, but that's too bad for you.

Thank you for the references to transitional fossils, etc. I read them years ago.

You're welcome, but if you read them why did you still claim such evidence doesn't exist? Did you get amnesia?

Did you read up on the amazingly close correlation between the fossil and genetic phylogenetic trees? What is your explanation for that empirically observed data set?

Gerry: All the factors you list are simply components of the single hypothesis, did Joe commit the murder?

Zachriel: Each hypothesis has its own entailments. If Joe was merely a witness then it has different empirical implications with regards to the evidence.

Gerry: Well DUH! If the hypothesis was that Joe committed the murder then it is to be expected the evidence would take on different implications if it was shown he was only a witness.

And other evidence, such as pointing to motivation and state-of-mind are also important in forensic science. Hence, forensic science, like all sciences, proposes and tests different specific hypotheses, not some vague, generalized hypothesis, such as "did he commit the murder".

Specific is the key. Science doesn't look at some vague notion of "morphology", but at the specific characteristics. So, if the same structure in reptilian embryos that forms jaw bones instead forms ossicles in mammals, then we can propose that there were intermediate organisms, predict their strata, find the appropriate geological formation, and look for such fossils.

Gerry: So, here we go again. It's a straw man!

Yes, it's a strawman. You conflate some vaguely constituted notion of morphology with the specific details that are of interest to scientists.

"The scientific evidence can be used to establish the veracity of common descent beyond all reasonable doubt..."

Here you go again, 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is a legal standard NOT a scientific standard. It was believed to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in the minds of many that the sun revolved around the earth. How did that turn out? Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt which ultimately must be the scientific standard for determining truth. Also, who determines what constitutes reasonable doubt in this question, you? You may appeal to numbers in support of your position, but you'll only be guilty of using another logical fallacy. That form of argumentation seems to be a pattern for you.

"Common morphology is an empirically observed fact that requires an explanation...."

When did I ever argue against that? You're simply assuming your explanation is the correct one. I'm challenging that belief and the methods you use to support your position, ie, logically fallacious arguments such as circular reasoning.

"Darwin didn't start with the assumption common descent was true..."

Here you are certainly wrong. In all likelihood he acquired this belief from his grandfather Erasmus who espoused common descent many decades earlier. Darwin's diary from his time on the HMS Beagle also gives evidence that he was hypothesizing common descent even at that time.

"Why do you claim such evidence doesn't exist?"

When did I say such evidence doesn't exist? Never. It has never been a question about evidence, but about the application and interpretation of the evidence. You seem to think in a very one dimensional fashion. You assume their is only one interpretation of the evidence and that is your interpretation. Your analogy of Joe should have pointed that out to you. You thought the evidence was a slam dunk against Joe, but it's not. Neither is the evidence for common descent iron clad. Evidence is always subjective.

"What is your explanation for that empirically observed data set?"

This evidence is the same as all evidence, it's open to interpretation. As usual you assume common descent and point to that as the only plausible explanation.

Gerry: Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt which ultimately must be the scientific standard for determining truth.

Sorry, but that just betrays your lack of understanding of how science works. All scientific conclusions are held tentatively, and subject to revision or abandonment. Indeed, science is characterized by the ability to make these sorts of tentative conclusions, even when most of the universe may remain mysterious.

Beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt which ultimately must be the scientific standard for determining truth.

As Zachriel already pointed out, that statement alone shows that you don't have even the most basic understanding of how science operates. You are taking your religious view of some ultimate TRUTH, normally dictated by the Diety of you choice, and confusing it with the actual scientific method.

Also, who determines what constitutes reasonable doubt in this question, you? You may appeal to numbers in support of your position, but you'll only be guilty of using another logical fallacy. That form of argumentation seems to be a pattern for you.

I'll go with the vast majority who actually study and do science for a living over an ignorance based layman's opinion, thank you. You can scream logical fallacy if it makes you feel better. Just like the logical fallacy that makes me trust medical doctors who prescribe antibiotics for strep throat over a witchdoctor who suggests chanting and killing a chicken as a cure.

"Common morphology is an empirically observed fact that requires an explanation...."

When did I ever argue against that? You're simply assuming your explanation is the correct one. I'm challenging that belief and the methods you use to support your position, ie, logically fallacious arguments such as circular reasoning.

And all you succeeded in doing was demonstrating you don't know what circular reasoning even is.

"Why do you claim such evidence doesn't exist?"

When did I say such evidence doesn't exist? Never. It has never been a question about evidence, but about the application and interpretation of the evidence. You seem to think in a very one dimensional fashion. You assume their is only one interpretation of the evidence and that is your interpretation. Your analogy of Joe should have pointed that out to you. You thought the evidence was a slam dunk against Joe, but it's not. Neither is the evidence for common descent iron clad. Evidence is always subjective.

I'll go with the explanation that is the most logically consistent and consilient across hundreds of scientific disciplines, has demonstrated the best predictive power, and has withstood 150 years' worth of attempts to falsify it. You're free to believe some Loki God poofed all the evidence to look like evolution if you wish.

"What is your explanation for that empirically observed data set?"

This evidence is the same as all evidence, it's open to interpretation. As usual you assume common descent and point to that as the only plausible explanation.

In all those words you plumb forgot to give your explanation for the amazing congruence between the phylogenetic patterns of the fossil and genetic records.

"Sorry, but that just betrays your lack of understanding of how science works."

Ah yes, another classic evolutionist argument, 'if you just understood how science works you would agree with me." You guys are full of illogical arguments. Anyone who doesn't agree with you simply doesn't understand how science works. Yeah, right.

If conclusions in science are truly held tentatively why am I expected to accept evolution as a fact? If evolution is able to be abandoned why are those who challenge it ridiculed as ignorant and incapable of understanding how science works. Perhaps it's you who doesn't believe in the scientific method or understand how it works.

The simple truth is you hold evolution to be fact and simply are unwilling to entertain the possibility it's false. You demand evidence which you have no intention of accepting or even investigating. Yet you say it is I who does not understand how science works.

"Sorry, but that just betrays your lack of understanding of how science works."

Ah yes, another classic evolutionist argument, 'if you just understood how science works you would agree with me." You guys are full of illogical arguments. Anyone who doesn't agree with you simply doesn't understand how science works. Yeah, right.

No one said "if you just understood how science works you would agree with me." We are saying it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with someone like you who has demonstrated zero knowledge or understanding of the topic, and who relies on mindless regurgitation of Creationist PRATT talking points.

If conclusions in science are truly held tentatively why am I expected to accept evolution as a fact?

That life on the planet has been here over 3 billion years is a scientific fact. That life has changed considerably and in recognizable patterns over that time is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution is an explanation for the observed fact of evolution.

If evolution is able to be abandoned why are those who challenge it ridiculed as ignorant and incapable of understanding how science works.

You get ridiculed because you don't challenge ToE with scientific evidence. You challenge it with demonstrable ignorance and misunderstandings.

Perhaps it's you who doesn't believe in the scientific method or understand how it works.

No, it's you to a > 3-sigma probability.

The simple truth is you hold evolution to be fact and simply are unwilling to entertain the possibility it's false.

Not true. We just require more evidence than the usual Creationist empty bluster.

You demand evidence which you have no intention of accepting or even investigating.

That I will grant you. The vast majority of practicing scientists agree with the idea of evolution. Does that make it true or are you simply following the majority blindly? Can you think for yourself or do you just believe what the majority believes? This type of appeal carries no weight logically.

I really don't understand why you always make childish statements equating doubt in evolution with belief in witch doctors. Is that the most mature argument you can provide? Do you really expect me to accept your implication that belief in evolution is necessary to accept modern medical practice? The two have nothing in common. In fact evolutionary thought has been detrimental to medical research. The evolutionary belief that the appendix was a useless vestige of our evolutionary past is only one example. Such thinking resulted in the belief that the appendix was of no importance and could be routinely removed. It is now known to be of great use no thanks to evolutionary thought. Fortunately not everyone blindly accepted what the majority of evolutionists held to be true.

"All you succeeded in doing was demonstrating you don't understand what circular reasoning even is."

I've said before, but I'll say it again, you're really entertaining. I've never come across someone who can bounce off walls quite like you. How on earth does the statement you quoted contradict my claim you're using circular reasoning?

"Has withstood 150 years of attempts to falsify it."

What would you accept as falsifying evolution? And don't say a pre-cambrian bunny. At least try to come up with a mature response.

"You plumb forgot to give your explanation..."

First, the congruence is not at the level you imply. Different human genes are resulting in greatly varying trees. Second, the concept of common design explains the facts as well as common descent. I will go now and wait for your howls of derision which will be conspicuous for the lack of any actual sound criticism of that position.

That I will grant you. The vast majority of practicing scientists agree with the idea of evolution. Does that make it true or are you simply following the majority blindly? Can you think for yourself or do you just believe what the majority believes? This type of appeal carries no weight logically.

The proof is in the pudding. As I already pointed out, the evolution paradigm is used successfully by thousands of businesses and lab and by hundreds of thousands of researchers. If you have something that works better, publish it and become a millionaire overnight. Money talks and BS walks Gerry, and all ID is doing is walking right mow.

I really don't understand why you always make childish statements equating doubt in evolution with belief in witch doctors. Is that the most mature argument you can provide? Do you really expect me to accept your implication that belief in evolution is necessary to accept modern medical practice?

Not to accept, but to understand why certain things work the way they do. Why doctors insist you finish all your antibiotic prescription even though you feel better. Why we can use pigs' heart valves in human operations but not alligators' valves. But we both know you're not interested in understanding.

How on earth does the statement you quoted contradict my claim you're using circular reasoning?

I don't have to 'contradict' unsupported claims, just point them out. It's up to you to show why your stupid strawman has any relevance to the actual ToE.

What would you accept as falsifying evolution? And don't say a pre-cambrian bunny. At least try to come up with a mature response.

Having the fossil phylogenetic tree be vastly different from the genetic tree for instance. Having animals with different types, er, 'kinds' of non-compatible DNA for another. ToE is quite falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. How can you falsify ID?

Second, the concept of common design explains the facts as well as common descent.

Hardly. We have recognize and tested mechanisms for common descent, and a timeline. What are the mechanisms for design? When was the design done? and where? How were the raw materials collected? Who did the actual manufacturing? Merely saying 'common design' explains zero point squat.

What observations would be incompatible with common design? How do you falsify ID? How do you know your 'designer' didn't use evolution to achieve his end goals?

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/